Charles Hamilton Houston: Petition in Missouri ex rel Gaines v. Canada

Document Text

Reasons Relied on for the Allowance of the Writ.

1. The State of Missouri denied petitioner the equal protection of the laws guaranteed him by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States in that—

a. The Curators of the University of Missouri refused him admission to the School of Law of the University of Missouri (the only public institution offering instruction in law in Missouri) solely because of race or color.

Petitioner challenged his exclusion as a denial of his Federal right to equal protection both in the Circuit Court and the Supreme Court of Missouri. The Circuit Court denied mandamus without opinion; the Supreme Court considered and denied the claim of Federal right.

b. The Lincoln University Act of 1921 as applied to the facts of this case does not afford petitioner a substantial equivalent to the opportunity offered to white and other non-Negro students to study law in the School of Law of the University of Missouri.

Petitioner challenged the Lincoln University Act as a denial of his Federal right to equal protection both in the Circuit Court and the Supreme Court of Missouri. The Circuit Court denied mandamus without opinion; the Supreme Court considered and denied the claim of Federal right.

c. The burden of proving that the State had otherwise afforded petitioner an opportunity to study law substantially equal to that accorded by the State to white and other non-Negro students in the School of Law of the University of Missouri was on the Registrar and Curators of the University of Missouri. They failed to sustain the burden.

Petitioner asserted both in the Circuit Court and the Supreme Court of Missouri that it was an incident to his Federal right to the equal protection of the laws that when he had established that the State had excluded him from the School of Law of the University of Missouri solely because of race or color, the burden was on the representatives of the State to establish that the State had otherwise accorded him an opportunity to study law substantially equal to that accorded white and other non-Negro students in the School of Law of the University of Missouri. Neither the Circuit Court nor the Supreme Court expressly ruled on this claim of Federal right.

2. There is a conflict of decision between the highest courts of the two states which have passed on the question as to what constitutes equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States where the state has excluded a qualified Negro citizen of the state from the School of Law of the State University solely because of race or color.

The Court of Appeals of Maryland in Pearson v. Murray, 169 Md. 478, 182 A. 590, 103 A.L.R. 706 (1936), decided it was a denial of the Federal right to exclude the Negro student. The Supreme Court of Missouri in the instant case, 113 S.W. (2d) 783 (Mo. 1937), decided it was not a denial of Federal right to exclude the Negro student. There is no precedent in this court authoritatively settling the Federal question.

3. Sixteen states exclude Negroes from their State Universities solely because of race or color. Six of these sixteen states, and Maryland, have scholarship provisions for study outside the state. Ten make no provisions whatever for the graduate or professional training of Negroes.

Even if it be considered that under any circumstances a money grant could constitute the equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to a Negro citizen forced by the state to go outside the state solely because of race or color to study courses offered to all other students in the state university within the state border, nevertheless there is an irreconcilable conflict in the statutes of the scholarship laws as to size of grant, elements of compensation and other conditions which leaves the question in confusion and great uncertainty. There is no Federal precedent establishing whether a scholarship grant can constitute the equal protection of the laws; and if so, what the standard of equal protection should be.

4. According to the 1930 Census, 9,176,970 Negroes live in the sixteen states which exclude Negroes from the state university solely because of race or color. Negroes attending school in these states numbered 1,879,388. In 1933, these states had 17,893 Negroes enrolled in institutions of higher learning. It is of the utmost public importance that a standard of equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States be established for these students as they attempt to equip themselves to meet the highest standards of citizenship.

A decision in this case will go far toward establishing a standard of conduct for the States under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.